Clark on Wikileaks

Former Prime Minister Helen Clark believes the effort the United States has put into improving its relationship with New Zealand in the past few years has been damaged in the eyes of ordinary New Zealanders because the WikiLeaks cables showed “disrespect” for New Zealand’s independent foreign policy.

That is a typical Clark view of reality. Most would say that the cables have in fact showed Clark’s claim to have an independent foreign policy to be a platitude, as Clark sent troops to Iraq, in order to help Fonterra.

She said the ones authored in particular by former ambassador Charles Swindells and deputy chief of mission David Burnett were “distinctly unpleasant about New Zealand and about the Government, really quite disrespectful, if I can put it that way”.

I’d forgotten how much Clark tended to project herself as being the same as the Government and indeed even the country. So when she says the cables were unpleasant about New Zealand, she means unpleasant about her.

Wikileaks are cable from US diplomats. They reflect the ‘opinions’ as the US diplomats not reality. I am not saying that Clark’s public reality is correct but just because something is said in a cable does not make it real either.

I think Labour sent a small part army to Iraq to improve chances of a Free Trade agreement with the USA (why any government would want one is beyond me) that would (supposedly and again I doubt it) benefit our exports like Fonterra.

tom hunter

The following piece of satire from Iowahawk – So You Lost Your Election – is aimed more at US politicians after they’ve left office. However, it seems very appropriate to the person in question in this thread, particularly this section:

The road to your new non-Washington career begins with an inventory of your personal strengths and competencies. Read the critical skill list below, and circle the ones that you possess.

We have to put our political allegiance aside and look at the bigger picture, our national identity. American foreign policy since the passing of our ‘anti-nuclear’ policy has been centred on our isolation, particularly from the ANZUS treaty and from American influence within the South Pacific region.

My theory on this issue is rather simple: the only reason why America is trying to mend our broken relationship is in response to China’s cheque-book diplomacy right here in the South Pacific. America is trying to re-stake its former influence in our region, and it recognises that New Zealand wields a strategic influence of our own. America is trying to use our influence for its own reintegration into the region. It recently chose Fiji as its newly-established ‘regional funding hub’.

The US also acknowledges our ‘unique’ relationship with a number of uprising Asian countries (China, Japan, India, etc).

Diplomacy is a game of skill. If the New Zealand diplomats were smart enough they would play this game cautiously, revealing nothing to the yanks unless absolutely necessary. We receive a lot more from Asia economically, it’s important to keep this in mind.

jaba

reid

The article includes this quote:

Summary: Foreign and defence policies in New Zealand are the products of an internal debate between two worlds.

The first world – most military, intelligence, foreign affairs and business professionals, and a handful of politicians – values its relationship with the United States and still sees New Zealand as a United States ally.

The other world – most politicians, media, academics and much of the public – views the United States with suspicion or hostility and sees New Zealand as non-aligned.

This is what is fundamentally wrong with our media. The non-aligned nations group is not what the public has said it wants. There has never been a public debate or an election platform on re-aligning NZ’s traditional relationships away from the Commonwealth and the US and toward the non-aligned nations. It’s been happening since Clark got in but always quietly under the radar. I recall it mentioned in the press only about half a dozen times throughout her reign. Anyone who follows it knew it but the point is, this is a fundamental shift in our FP. Fundamental. And at what point did the media do its job and start a campaign to have a national debate on it. Instead they think the one drink or two issue is much more important than NZ’s long-term international alliances.

niggly

I’m more interested in why the Clark Administration courted Chinese etc influence to counter the Australian and US in the Pacific.

Is this really true?

Is this treason?

Whilst the economic powerhouse of China and trade is welcomed for the likes of NZ and the Pacific, the problem IMO is the unintended consequences, such as, China’s less than transparent mindset and positioning of influence. What are the long term consequences here? (PI countries owing a lot of debt to China is the most obvious).

At least with the US, international conventions apply, and NZ can sit at the table and try and influence them.

Does NZ and the Pacific Island nations sit at China’s table? No, not to the same extent.

The US is telling us NZ’ers via wikileaks that the Clark administration was playing a very dangerous game to continue to curtail the US in the Pacific. Judging by today’s NZ Herald interview with Helen Clark, her worldview really hasn’t changed …. (probably as a result of hanging out in NY with her follow travellers and activists from other countries troughing out at the UN, meethinks Clark will become even more critical in time, so as to look “cool” etc)…

niggly

Reid, I wrote my piece before I saw yours.

Yes, I’m totally 100% in agreement with your writing.

Clark has always favoured the non-aligned nations etc…..why the dumb MSM can’t count further than their own two feet and figure out and write about how ridiculous this would be from a NZ FP view, in terms of economic investment, trade, education etc, goodness knows why they haven’t and exposed Clark’s archillies heel.

Reality check some of you. Helen Clark came into power in 1999 and tried to further reduce NZ influence in the 5 Eyes Western “club” of nations, to an extent she did succeed, but also reality hit home to her that NZ does have a place in the “club” because NZ doesn’t have the influence and capability to truely go it alone, we just don’t have enough economic clout to do so (and neither does our more wealthy neighbour Australia). Eg we had to rely on our historical diplomatic channels to get kiwis in trouble out of hotspots (or even dead bodies).

Meanwhile Helen knows all this but continues to piss on the west and NZ …..

niggly, the US left the Pacific region if memory serves me correctly, and set its eyes on the greener pastures of the East. It only decided to reinstate its regional aid station to Fiji after pressure to respond to Chinese ‘cheque-book diplomacy’.

The former New Zealand government embraced China as a regional chess piece because it could speak in cash, and not with mere rhetoric or diplomatic ‘dialogue’ as they call it these days. This contributed to active regional development and ultimate progress.

You have to recognise that New Zealand owes nothing to America, nothing at all. I believe the US made its bed when it expelled NZ from the former ANZUS treaty, it must now lie in it. We were always free to consult our own foreign policy without US contribution. China happened to be there in the making, and as the first Western country to formalise a free trade agreement with the Chinese – it was only natural to return the diplomatic favour.

It seems as though the American diplomats are victims of ‘sour grape syndrome’?

reid

the US left the Pacific region if memory serves me correctly, and set its eyes on the greener pastures of the East.

More correctly Fale, the US left the South Pacific to Australia and NZ to manage since it was its region. This is why Australia and NZ have been so prominent in Fijian affairs ever since the first coup in Lange’s time.

China has been busily penetrating the South Pacific for almost 15 years and for quite awhile it didn’t make any traction but now that it is, in the last five years, it’s becoming a low-level superpower issue not just a regional one. The US have a legitimate interest in checking China in the region, just as China has a legitimate interest in pursuing its expansion.

You have to recognise that New Zealand owes nothing to America, nothing at all. I believe the US made its bed when it expelled NZ from the former ANZUS treaty, it must now lie in it. We were always free to consult our own foreign policy without US contribution.

Yeah but with respect Fale, so what? As a matter of fact, NZ made its bed when it decided to withdraw from ANZUS for it was always and had always been far more beneficial for us than it was for the US. Honestly, nations do not relate to each other like children. People who bring up this subject that “NZ had the right to do it” thereby demonstrate they understand nothing about diplomacy or international relations. That fact has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH ANYTHING AND NEVER HAS. Because you see, nations always have the right to do anything they fucking like. They can do anything up to and including invading other nations. We have the right to invade Fiji if we fucking want to. It’s not a wise move but we have the right to do it. We’d have to take the consequences of course and we’d probably be subject to international sanctions but as a sovereign nation we can do anything we fucking want. The point is, is it wise?

OECD rank 22 kiwi

niggly

China happened to be there in the making, and as the first Western country to formalise a free trade agreement with the Chinese – it was only natural to return the diplomatic favour.

Fale, as a (part) PI myself, brother, you need to realise that, although the NZ-China FTA is beneficial, it’s not quite as simple as you portray it (or perhaps more accurately, as the then Govt’s comms advisers put it … then spoon fed to the media).

The FTA was an opportunity for China to “use” a little western nation like NZ to work out the politics on conducting a FTA (eg where are the boundaries, what’s acceptable and not etc). This will put them on good stead in future years when dealing with bigger nations etc. So they can thank humble, honest NZ, (which they won’t) when they become powerful enough to put the screws on.

As for NZ, again the Govt gets to put one up the US, continue to de-ride the US etc. See a pattern?

Granted there are economic benefits to NZ despite all this. Got to keep NZ viable, wouldn’t want to be the Govt forever doomed in history as being the one to call in the IMF ….

Don’t forget for a moment that a significant number of the members of Labour’s caucus owe their livelihoods to Helen Elizabeth Clark. They will do whatever they are instructed to do. Clark still casts a shadow over New Zealand, even from afar. A further rejection of Labour in 2011 is needed to hasten the purge of the Clark loyalists.

Ultimately, New Zealand finds itself in the middle of two great international powers fighting for influence in our greater region, and how we play this out will determine the future course of our foreign policy.

I propose that we milk the two ‘golden’ cows for as long as possible, keeping our cards as close to our chest as possible. There is no reason why we can’t play ‘nicely’ with the both of them. There are noticeable benefits in doing just that.

niggly

Well in simple terms NZ and Australia are milking both China and the US (in terms of exports and investments) and also to allow them to top up (NZ’s and Australia’s relatively small) aid donations in the South Pacific.

Trouble is, China and the US on the world stage are having disagreements, so countries like NZ and Australia to an extent, are looked at and questioned as to where their loyalties lie.

Anyway I should be a lot more positive, in that the National Govt are repairing some of Clark’s damage …

Expect another HC missive (abuse missile) pointed at National by HC whilst she is currently networking in NZ (and sharing the dirt & gossip she has gleaned from the UN ….

reid

I propose that we milk the two ‘golden’ cows for as long as possible, keeping our cards as close to our chest as possible. There is no reason why we can’t play ‘nicely’ with the both of them.

As time goes by Fale we’ll be forced to chose and that’s not going to be an easy question. It’s clear the US is in decline and China is on the rise. It’s also clear which choice Australia will make – its already made it. They’re the US’ Deputy Sheriff in the region that causes tension with China, sometimes and will increasingly in the future.

Its clear that in the coming decades our bread will be buttered far more by China than by the US. This choice is yet another FP debate that should be thrown over for public discussion. Australia did it when they took their decision to head for the US about a decade ago. Why can’t we do it as well.

Anyway I should be a lot more positive, in that the National Govt are repairing some of Clark’s damage …

Yes isn’t it amazing the media never once pointed to her poisonous anti-US attitudes to the public. Not once.

Excellent assessment Reid, indeed you’re correct, eventually it will come down to the final choice (one or the other). We can’t have our cake and eat it too.

And like you, I think the government should place that choice in the public domain. The New Zealand Constituency should be given the final say on that. Such a decision is bound to shape our national identity as we move beyond the 21st century, and all caution should be occupied.

I think we also have to consider our national interests, and whether or not they’re supported effectively by our final choice. By choosing China for example, we may be faced with increased isolation by our Australian neighbours who favour America. And by choosing America we could face alienation from our Asian partners. It will be a rocky road, but it has the potential to re-write our future. It better be a good one…

niggly

So, just before I go, in terms of the NZ-China FTA, clearly for a massive and growing country like China there are benefits of opening themselves up to NZ trade (eg dairy and meat etc) to feed their population. I’m not knocking China, in saying that, as it’s win-win for all (and the more we help bring China into the fold so to speak then the better in terms of peace and prosperity) 😉

But what if China wants more, such as access to minerals and mining, is there any provision in the FTA for this? Or to open up mining in NZ?

I hope HC hasn’t done some subtle anti-National Park mining positioning for the future (like she did with foreign affairs) 😉

Populationwise, New Zealand is about the same size as Kentucky, and about as important in the minds of those in the US government. They ain’t gunna send the brains trust out here. They are going to find a loyal supporter/donor to the President and give him a cushy job where he gets to come to some beautiful islands and drink a lot of alcohol. So it’s hard to criticise any ambassador they send out here, because if they were any good they would keep them in Washington. Of course, with the current President, the ceiling for competence is not high…

kowtow

Further to Paulus at 1123.
The UN was founded by the US and UK to defeat totalitarian militarism. And it was a great organisation for a while.

Ironically people here are discussing whether NZ should ally with the US or China. Unbelievable!

NZ fought in the UN war against NKorea and it’s Chinese sponsor. A war that has not ended and in which the aggressor is still threatening a democracy with nuclear attacks. And people here wonder who to side with!

Kowtow, your forked-tongue allowes you to forget that the US has also raged war for its own interest, expecting a helping hand from its allies everytime.

Your cold-war mentality has no place in post-20th century politics. America and China happen to be in economic dialogue as we speak, China throwing the US its only available life-line during the recession (and holding on to most of its debt all the meanwhile).

American capitalism has encouraged off-shoring assets and investment to Asia, it is only right for New Zealand to promote these ‘Western ideologies’ by atleast considering a future partnership with the Chinese emperor. Your reference to the Korean conflict is dumbfounded because America and China happen to be working together to reach a common conclusion.

reid

…who did we send as ambassador to Washington? “Spud” Bolger himself, that intelectual giant!

He surprised me with his astute performance whilst there. It was astute and effective. It made me reconsider my policy that if I were PM I would never ever not once appoint political mates to the top diplomatic posts. His is one of the few that have been effective. Hunt however is a very fine example of the complete opposite outcome so at the end of the day I didn’t change my policy there.

He’s not intellectually agile but he is a safe pair of hands and he knows the diplomatic game. He didn’t want the Court of St James because he’s Irish and you could see that in some of his FP moves as well. It does actually piss me off that the public never get a fair assessment of the PM’s FP prespectives ever, which they should, in the very first days of their Administrations. It should be a standard media post-election Sunday paper showpiece. Shame really, it would probably boost circulation, as well as being a powerful media influencer on the Administration’s future directions for imagine if in 2000 we’d been told in great detail about Hulun’s Vietnam war protesting and its subsequent influence on her FP perspectives.

Imagine if that had been splashed across the papers, just as it had been (in our imaginary world), for Bolger, Shipley, Lange, etc. I imagine that would have had a rather limiting effect on her more bilious moves in the FP arena and wouldn’t that have been a shame.

reid

Ironically people here are discussing whether NZ should ally with the US or China. Unbelievable!

kowtow the key to geopolitics is that it’s purely about best national interest and nothing more. There is nothing repeat nothing sentimental or emotional about it, ever. Moves are done with that in mind always. They’re not always the right strategic moves and they’re not always competently executed either, but the motivating factor is never anything but what is in our best national interest.

Sometimes that may involve a decades long calculation with several ups and downs as the strategy plays out and normally the chattering masses focus only on a particular event and never the trend, which is their first mistake of course.

But in the world in 2030 as best as one now can see it, where is the US going to be, where is China going to be and where is Australia/SE Asis going to be. That is the basis of the debate that needs to be had and there is no morality or ethics in it at all. It’s a simple question: what is the best most reliable consensus picture we have and what does mean in terms of what we need to do over the next 5, 10, 15 and 20 years?

I agree that many people DO think of FP in sentimental terms but anthropomorphising a nation is not something you see in diplomatic or military or intelligence assessments: i.e. those documents which actually do detail what actually later happens in terms of a nation’s diplomatic actions.

reid

Is there such a cable already released ?

No I regret to inform but let’s hope so soon.

I was basing my comment on my recollection of this but clearly my recollection wasn’t accurate so I apologise to Hulun unreservedly for disgracing her otherwise sterling untarnished reputation in the world as we know it. I’m very sorry.

Can Goff explain why a 14 year old boy named Hamish Jevan Goul­ter was taken from school and given a job in a labour politician’s office when they were government. Why this 14 year old also went to chris carters wedding, and why he seems to have photo’s with a lot of labour politicians. Is it normal for a gay politician to hire a gay preteen and fly them around the country? Can Goff also please explain why the tax payers paid when labour was in government for an Airforce plane to be sent to the USA to bring a politican’s husband home.

Komata

Has anyone else noticed that there are absolutely NO comments from teh ‘usual suspects’ in support of their former esteemed leader – and that Mallard et are very conspicuous by their absence – even from here. Distancing themselves from the ‘lady’ perhaps – or fleeing from a sinking ship and its mad (former) Kaptain?

“Helen Clark was critical of her former top policy adviser (and former Immigration Service boss) Mary Anne Thompson for, according to the cables, being a good source of information for the US embassy, saying she had no brief for foreign affairs issues.”

Clark is hanging out to dry anyone who makes her look bad irrespective of what their actual role was under her command.

Santa

What do you expect Helen, being told to f—off by your govt agencies causes these things to be included in the file sent to FBI on how & why the NZ govt backstabs,not only it’s own citizens but cant be trusted as well.
Would you really like names to be mentioned or emails opened up to the public?.
You were the Prime Minister?.